Skip to main content

Table 9 The gap group’s perceptions toward their skill scores in Study 2

From: Skill profiles of Japanese English learners and reasons for uneven patterns

 

n

Q1 (Any sections in which you received lower scores?)

Q2 (In what section did you receive lower scores?)

Yes (n)

No

L

R

S

W

Overall

 2014

53

67.92 (36)

18.87

50.00a

5.56

55.56

19.46

 2015

53

83.02 (44)

13.21

38.64

6.82

70.45

2.27

 2016

33

84.85 (29)

12.12

44.83

3.45

55.18

6.90

 2017

49

73.47 (38)

16.33

44.74

10.52

68.42

7.89

High prof.

 2014

14

50.00 (7)

14.29

28.57

28.57

57.14

28.57

 2015

16

93.75 (15)

6.25

0

0

100.00

6.67

 2016

8

100.00 (8)

0

12.50

0

87.50

12.50

 2017

14

85.71 (12)

14.29

0

25.00

83.33

25.00

Low prof.

 2014

39

74.36 (29)

20.51

55.17

0

55.17

17.24

 2015

37

78.38 (29)

16.22

58.62

10.34

55.17

0

 2016

25

84.00 (21)

16.00

57.14

4.76

42.86

4.76

 2017

32

74.29 (26)

17.14

65.38

3.85

61.54

0

  1. Percentages of participants in the gap group (i.e., those with two- or more-level differences in mastery of skills). High prof. and low prof., higher- and lower-proficiency gap groups. This also applies to Table 10. a18/36 (the number of those who selected L divided by the number of those who answered “yes” in question 1). Yes and no responses in Q1 do not add up to 100% due to missing responses. In Q2, learners were able to select more than one skill